The manuscript model DOSSIER is the graphical guide to play the Reading game of the State visit. Körner has alienated the Fidel Castro Visit to the GDR in June 1972 into the fictive story about the Cumban prince Tandi. In addition, he fancifully and ingeniously incorporated the talks of the secret services of various nations. The unfolding directions (more than four!) of the Leporello embody the voices of the secret services, as Körner explains in the manuscript model:
Körner adds to his explanations of the model:
Actually this reading game can be understood as a performance of his ensembling-idea, as the author explains in his model under Zum Stoff: By writing the text, while reading the newspaper, I got into playing like gambling, the situation of the intelligence agencies not quite far away. ‘Dossiers’, plans, distractions, pseudo solutions, minor characters were created as if by itself to the output you find here …
For the virtual reading game, the author has taken an alienated text and pictures from the daily newspaper Neues Deutschland. He has cut the heads off the embracing statesmen (Castro on the left and Honecker on the right) from a photo in Neues Deutschland from June, 14th, 1972 and uses the bodies (without heads) in his reading game as background picture on the first day.
The fictional and rather ironical conversation of the secret services can be reached by pressing the Omega button (to the right of the arrow keys):
Ensembling according Körner means intensive reading, dismantling metaphors, phrases and words and reassembling all to new meaning.
Körner distinguishes between horizontal and vertical assembly. For the vertical assembly he finds the formula: a-f-t-org-ord-r / sv or bwz: act fact tendency organization order result SV Seinssachverhalt or BWZ status of Consciousness. This formula specifies the ratio of one card file to one or more other cards. Act (as a point of space) is the elementary particle of the ensemble, with fact the relation of several acts to each other is described, wihich shows their trend. The tendencyorganizes several facts to each other, ultimately they are in order. Körner himself gives practical literary examples for the application of the formula in the Fragment of the Book Fourth Box, where he noted his reading findings on Shakespeare’s Richard III, i.e. on index card 0940:
In the novel The Land of all Evil reading is a process and means first dissecting sentences and metaphers to words and then reintegrating the words into (new) relationships. Reading can follow a system, too. Körner gives a very good example in his reading notes of Shakespeares Richard III in the Fragment of the Book Fourth Box.
The reader should intensively and deliberately read the text material “in mental and physical activity”. To read physically means to perceive each sentence, each word individually, without regard to grammar, punctuation, structure, i.e. to break every sentence into words, metaphors into its individual components. To read mentally means to reload the gained individual parts with meaning and to reassemble them in the right proportion (for the text created by the reader). Körner understands this intensive reading activity as “ensembling”. At the same time, the reader should follow his own ideas, e.g. arrange the material anew, experimentally.
Before choosing a fragment, there is a kind of preface called Robust Mandate for the reader and a selection entitled Comparison of Draft and Final Version of a Law (called Direktive). Click on the second selection Entwurf mit Direktive to get a photo animation. You see the author Thomas Körner comparing the wording of a draft with the final directive issued.
Before any decision on a legislative directive a draft was formulated which could then have undergone further changes after a (national) debate. In Art. 21 § 2 the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic of 1968 gives the citizens of the GDR the opportunity to prove their will in plebiscites. However, the competence to conduct a referendum is at the discretion of the People’s Chamber (Article 53). Article 65 (3) introduced the procedure of a so-called popular (public) discussion, which had already been practiced before the adoption of the new constitution. In a public debate the draft would have been discussed within selected professional circles.
Körner proves how comprehensively the professional groups have used their rights of co-determination: no changes in content have been made, only in syntax. Instead of a semicolon they put a comma, the word “until” was replaced by a hyphen, the term “strength” was replaced by the “strengthening”. So actually there was no public debate.